You are on page 1of 6

EN BANC

[AC-5365. April 27, 2005]


Spouses FRANKLIN and LOURDES OLBES, complainants, vs. Atty. VICTOR V.
DECIEMBRE, respondent.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

Constituting a serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility was the malevolent act of
respondent, who filled up the blank checks entrusted to him as security for a loan by writing on those checks
amounts that had not been agreed upon at all, despite his full knowledge that the loan they were meant to secure
had already been paid.
The Case
Before us is a verified Petition[1] for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, filed by Spouses
Franklin and Lourdes Olbes with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. Petitioners charged respondent
with willful and deliberate acts of dishonesty, falsification and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. After
he had filed his Comment[2] on the Petition, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay, held several
hearings. During those hearings, the last of which was held on May 12, 2003, [3]the parties were able to present
their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. After the filing of the parties respective formal offers of
evidence, as well as petitioners Memorandum,[4] the case was considered submitted for resolution. Subsequently, the
commissioner rendered his Report and Recommendation dated January 30, 2004, which was later adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XV-2003-177 dated July 30, 2004.
The Facts
In their Petition, Spouses Olbes allege that they were government employees working at the Central Post
Office, Manila; and that Franklin was a letter carrier receiving a monthly salary of P6,700, and Lourdes, a mail
sorter, P6,000.[5]
Through respondent, Lourdes renewed on July 1, 1999 her application for a loan from Rodela Loans, Inc.,
in the amount of P10,000. As security for the loan, she issued and delivered to respondent five Philippine
National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241-45), which served as collateral for the approved loan as well
as any other loans that might be obtained in the future. [6]
On August 31, 1999, Lourdes paid respondent the amount of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan plus
surcharges, penalties and interests, for which the latter issued a receipt, [7]herein quoted as follows:
August 31, 1999
Received the amount of P14,874.37 as payment of the loan of P10,000.00 taken earlier by Lourdes
Olbes.

(Sgd.) Atty. Victor V. Deciembre


8-31-99
P10,000.00
PNB Check No. 46241 8/15/99[8]

Notwithstanding the full payment of the loan, respondent filled up four (of the five) blank PNB Checks
(Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243 and 0046244) for the amount of P50,000 each, with different dates of
maturity -- August 15, 1999, August 20, 1999, October 15, 1999 and November 15, 1999, respectively. [9]
On October 19, 1999, respondent filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal an Affidavit-
Complaint against petitioners for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. He alleged therein that on
July 15, 1999, around one-thirty in the afternoon at Cainta, Rizal, they personally approached him and requested
that he immediately exchange with cash their postdated PNB Check Nos. 0046241 and 0046242
totaling P100,000.[10]
Several months after, or on January 20, 2000, respondent filed against petitioners another Affidavit-
Complaint for estafa and violation of BP 22. He stated, among others, that on the same day, July 15, 1999,
around two oclock in the afternoon at Quezon City, they again approached him and requested that he exchange
with cash PNB Check Nos. 0046243 and 0046244 totaling P100,000.[11]
Petitioners insisted that on the afternoon of July 15, 1999, they never went either to Cainta, Rizal, or to
Quezon City to transact business with respondent. Allegedly, they were in their office at the time, as shown by
their Daily Time Records; so it would have been physically impossible for them to transact business in Cainta,
Rizal, and, after an interval of only thirty minutes, in Quezon City, especially considering the heavy traffic
conditions in those places.[12]
Petitioners averred that many of their office mates -- among them, Juanita Manaois, Honorata Acosta and
Eugenia Mendoza -- had suffered the same fate in their dealings with respondent. [13]
In his Comment,[14] respondent denied petitioners claims, which he called baseless and devoid of any truth
and merit. Allegedly, petitioners were the ones who had deceived him by not honoring their commitment
regarding their July 15, 1999 transactions. Those transactions, totaling P200,000, had allegedly been covered by
their four PNB checks that were, however, subsequently dishonored due to ACCOUNT CLOSED. Thus, he
filed criminal cases against them. He claimed that the checks had already been fully filled up when petitioners
signed them in his presence. He further claimed that he had given them the amounts of money indicated in the
checks, because his previous satisfactory transactions with them convinced him that they had the capacity to
pay.
Moreover, respondent said that the loans were his private and personal transactions, which were not in any
way connected with his profession as a lawyer. The criminal cases against petitioners were allegedly private
actions intended to vindicate his rights against their deception and violation of their obligations. He maintained
that his right to litigate should not be curtailed by this administrative action.

Report of the Investigating Commissioner

In his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The commissioner said that respondents version of the facts was not credible. Commissioner Dulay
rendered the following analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented:

In his affidavit-complaint x x x executed to support his complaint filed before the Provincial Prosecution Office
of Rizal respondent stated that:

2. That last July 15, 1999, in the jurisdiction of Cainta, Rizal, both LOURDES E. OLBES and FRANKLIN A.
OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to immediately exchange with cash, right there and then, their
postdated checks totaling P100,000.00 then, to be immediately used by them in their business venture.

Again in his affidavit-complaint executed to support his complaint filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Quezon City respondent stated that:

2. That last July 15, 1999, at around 2PM, in the jurisdiction of Quezon City, M.M., both LOURDES E. OLBES
and FRANKLIN A. OLBES x x x, personally met and requested me to immediately exchange with cash, right
there and then, their postdated checks totaling P100,000.00 then, to be immediately used by them in their
business venture.
The above statements executed by respondent under oath are in direct contrast to his testimony before this
Commission on cross-examination during the May 12, 2003 hearing, thus:

ATTY PUNZALAN: (continuing)


Q. Based on these four (4) checks which you claimed the complainant issued to you, you filed two
separate criminal cases against them, one, in Pasig City and the other in Quezon City, is that
correct?
A. Yes, Your Honor, because the checks were deposited at different banks.
Q. These four checks were accordingly issued to you by the complainants on July 15, 1999, is that
correct?
A. I will consult my records, You Honor, because its quite a long time. Yes, Your Honor, the first two
checks is in the morning and the next two checks is in the afternoon (sic).
COMM. DULAY:
Which are the first two checks?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
The first two checks covering check Nos. 46241 and 46242 in the morning. And Check No. 46243
and 46244 in the afternoon, Your Honor.
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Q. Could you recall what particular time in the morning that these two checks with number 0046241
and 0046242 xxx have been issued to you?
A. I could not remember exactly but in the middle part of the morning around 9:30 to 10:00.
Q. This was issued to you in what particular place?
A. Here in my office at Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Q. Is that your house?
A. No, its not my house?
Q. What is that, is that your law office?
A. That is my retainer client.
Q. What is the name of that retainer client of yours?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
Your Honor, may I object because what is the materiality of the question?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
That is very material. I am trying to test your credibility because according to you these checks have
been issued in Pasig in the place of your client on a retainer. Thats why I am asking your client
COMM. DULAY:
The name of the client is not material I think. It is enough that he said it was issued here in Pasig.
What building?
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
AIC Corporate Center, Your Honor.
COMM. DULAY:
What is the materiality of knowing the name of his clients office?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
Because, Your Honor, the materiality is to find out whether he is telling the truth. The place, Your
Honor, according to the respondent is his client. Now I am asking who is that client?
COMM. DULAY:
Your answer.
ATTY. DECIEMBRE:
A. It is AIC Realty Corporation at AIC Building.
Q. And the same date likewise, the complainants in the afternoon issued PNB Check Nos. 0046243
and 0046244, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So would you want to tell this Honorable office that there were four checks issued in the place of
your client in Pasig City, two in the morning and two in the afternoon?
A. That is correct, sir.

Respondent was clearly not being truthful in his narration of the transaction with the complainants. As between
his version as to when the four checks were given, we find the story of complainant[s] more credible.
Respondent has blatantly distorted the truth, insofar as the place where the transaction involving the four checks
took place. Such distortion on a very material fact would seriously cast doubt on his version of the transaction
with complainants.

Furthermore respondents statements as to the time when the transactions took place are also obviously and
glaringly inconsistent and contradicts the written statements made before the public prosecutors. Thus further
adding to the lack of credibility of respondents version of the transaction.

Complainants version that they issued blank checks to respondent as security for the payment of a loan
of P10,000.00 plus interest, and that respondent filled up the checks in amounts not agreed upon appears to be
more credible. Complainants herein are mere employees of the Central Post Office in Manila who had a
previous loan of P10,000.00 from respondent and which has since been paid x x x. Respondent does not deny
the said transaction. This appears to be the only previous transaction between the parties. In fact, complainants
were even late in paying the loan when it fell due such that they had to pay interest. That respondent would trust
them once more by giving them another P200,000.00 allegedly to be used for a business and immediately
release the amounts under the circumstances described by respondent does not appear credible given the
background of the previous transaction and personal circumstances of complainants. That respondent who is a
lawyer would not even bother to ask from complainants a receipt for the money he has given, nor bother to
verify and ask them what businesses they would use the money for contributes further to the lack of credibility
of respondents version. These circumstances really cast doubt as to the version of respondent with regard to the
transaction. The resolution of the public prosecutors notwithstanding we believe respondent is clearly lacking in
honesty in dealing with the complainants. Complainant Franklin Olbes had to be jailed as a result of
respondents filing of the criminal cases. Parenthetically, we note that respondent has also filed similar cases
against the co-employees of complainants in the Central Post Office and respondent is facing similar complaints
in the IBP for his actions.[15]

The Courts Ruling


We agree with the findings and conclusions of Commissioner Dulay, as approved and adopted by the IBP
Board of Governors. However, the penalty should be more severe than what the IBP recommended.

Respondents Administrative Liability

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. [16] It is bestowed upon
individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. [17] A lawyer is
an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics,
and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she] has sworn to
be a fearless crusader.[18]
By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. [19] Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the
legal profession.[20]
The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates the following:

Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes.

xxxxxxxxx

Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.

xxxxxxxxx

Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

A high standard of excellence and ethics is expected and required of members of the bar. [21] Such conduct
of nobility and uprightness should remain with them, whether in their public or in their private lives. As officers
of the courts and keepers of the publics faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility
and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. [22]
The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of
good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld
and kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional
or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.[23]
In the present case, the IBP commissioner gave credence to the story of petitioners, who said that they had
given five blank personal checks to respondent at the Central Post Office in Manila as security for the P10,000
loan they had contracted. Found untrue and unbelievable was respondents assertion that they had filled up the
checks and exchanged these with his cash at Quezon City and Cainta, Rizal. After a careful review of the
records, we find no reason to deviate from these findings.
Under the circumstances, there is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion.
Respondent does not deny the P10,000 loan obtained from him by petitioners. According to Franklin Olbes
testimony on cross-examination, they asked respondent for the blank checks after the loan had been paid. On
the pretext that he was not able to bring the checks with him, [24] he was not able to return them. He thus
committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their high
regard for him as a member of the bar that made them trust him with their blank checks. [25]
It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his
malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and
despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid.
His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
And he did not stop there. Because the checks were dishonored upon presentment, respondent had the
temerity to initiate unfounded criminal suits against petitioners, thereby exhibiting his vile intent to have them
punished and deprived of liberty for frustrating the criminal duplicity he had wanted to foist on them. As a
matter of fact, one of the petitioners (Franklin) was detained for three months [26] because of the Complaints.
Respondent is clearly guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative
of moral depravity not expected from, and highly unbecoming, a member of the bar.
Good moral character is an essential qualification for the privilege to enter into the practice of law. It is
equally essential to observe this norm meticulously during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of
the privilege.[27] Good moral character includes at least common honesty. [28] No moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness and candor. [29] The rigorous ethics of the profession places a
premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. [30] Lawyers must be ministers of truth. Hence, they
must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act
in good faith.[31]
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable;[32] they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. [33]
Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by
the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit
and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one
petitioner is loathsome.
In Eustaquio v. Rimorin,[34] the forging of a special power of attorney (SPA) by the respondent to make it
appear that he was authorized to sell anothers property, as well as his fraudulent and malicious inducement of
Alicia Rubis to sign a Memorandum of Agreement to give a semblance of legality to the SPA, were sanctioned
with suspension from the practice of law for five years. Here, the conduct of herein respondent is even worse.
He used falsified checks as bases for maliciously indicting petitioners and thereby caused the detention of one
of them.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross misconduct and violation of Rules
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby indefinitely SUSPENDED from the
practice of law effective immediately. Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts as well as the Office of
the Bar Confidant, which is directed to append a copy to respondents personal record. Let another copy be
furnished the National Office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

You might also like